Alert Blog Reviews

Google has long complied with the government-mandated censorship required to operate in China, despite criticism from human rights and freedom of speech advocates. However, Google may be changing their tune, based on a blog post yesterday. Google’s new approach to China is far more open—and at least partially because a Chinese cyber attack compromised some intellectual property of the search giant. Naturally, Google is frequently the subject of cyber attacks, but this incident became more than just a security concern for Google. In addition to discovering dozens of other victims, Google has also determined the object of the breach—the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Google’s investigation has shown, so far, that the attackers did not compromise the accounts, though they might have been able to access basic information (creation date, subject lines) on two of them. They also found that other third parties (likely phishers and malware on users’ computers) had accessed other activists’ accounts. But Google’s doing more than advising users to scan their computers and beefing up https access to Gmail (emphasis added): These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn , and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China. Hm . . . I almost wonder if what they found in those activists’ accounts was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Google says that since their first foray into the country four years ago, they’ve believed that making some information available was a worthy objective—but, as they say above, they now believe that they must push for a more open Internet in China. What do you think? Will Google get to stay in China, or is this the end of Google.cn? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

See the article here:
Google Bucking Chinese Censorship After Cyber Attack

It’s been more than two years since Google’s last big big to enter a government-regulated offline business. They offered some $4.6B for wireless spectrum in an auction in 2008, but it seemed that the multi-billion bid was merely a ploy to get some of their demands for the spectrum met. But that’s not quite the case with Google’s recent application to buy and sell power “much like utility companies do,” according to the New York Times . Google told the Federal Energy Regulation Commission that they need this capability to support their power-hungry facilities with more renewable energy sources. Google created a subsidiary last month, Google Energy, to handle this. As the NYT points out, this isn’t Google’s first look at energy: This is hardly Google’s first foray into the energy world. Over the years, Google has invested in renewable energy projects through its philanthropic and venture capital units. It has also embarked on a number of engineering projects and partnerships to, for example, advance plug-in hybrids and offer tools to measure home electricity usage. And it has an ambitious goal to help develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal. Bill Weihl, Google’s green energy czar, discussed many of those initiatives and goals in a lengthy interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. Google insists that they’re not getting into the market to trade energy, but if their application is approved, they could sell any surplus energy they own. What do you think? Is this just Google’s carbon-neutrality quest, or a back-door entry into another market?

Go here to see the original:
Google Applies to Enter Energy Market

Tweets appear to be a pretty powerful 140 characters in some areas these days. In fact, based on this story there may be a whole new slice of the legal industry that can be created. Imagine the TV ad at 2 am “Has someone tweeted something about you that isn’t true? Have you suffered damage to your life in general because of a Twitter user with a mean streak? The Law Offices of Twit, Tweet and Twote can help you get your good name back one character at a time.” I just got a shiver up my spine just thinking about that as reality but in this new world order you never know. I bring this up because it appears that some people are not taking tweets lying down and taking legal action regarding comments. This is not the same as the imitator accounts suits that cropped up last year. This one (unfortunately) involves Kim Kardashian and a diet doctor (I am going to let you insert your own comments here because I don’t want to get sued but it’s so tempting). Media Post reports The doctor behind the Cookie Diet has sued celebrity Kim Kardashian for allegedly defaming him in on Twitter. The reality TV star allegedly tweeted in October that Dr. Sanford Siegal was “falsely promoting” that she was on the cookie diet. “Not true! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!,” she allegedly said via Twitter. “If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!” In a lawsuit filed last week in state court in Florida, Siegal alleges that these statements are false and defamatory. The diet doctor also alleges that Kardashian — who reportedly earns $10,000 per tweet as an endorser — was on QuickTrim’s payroll at the time. This dust up occurred when the doctor linked to an article about his diet that claimed Ms. Kardashian was using his diet. A cease and desist ensued and the doctor took the link down. Here’s where the ‘pay per tweet’ issue takes center stage in light of recent FCC rules that have gone into effect. Regardless of whether Siegal can prove libel, the allegations in the case highlight some of the issues the Federal Trade Commission aimed to address with its new blogger rules. The FTC’s new guides, which took effect Dec. 1 (after the alleged Kardashian tweets), state that bloggers should disclose all material connections between themselves and companies whose products they write about. Kardashian allegedly touted QuickTrim while disparaging the Cookie Diet without disclosing that QuickTrim was paying her, according to Siegal’s lawsuit. So what’s the law here? You have Kardashian allegedly making money on a tweet but not making note of it. Do the new disclosure rules apply to ‘micro-bloggers’ as well as bloggers? Was the doctor legally responsible for linking to a third party article that was believed to be untrue? Apparently there is no clarity around this because different government agencies may see each situation differently. Some government agencies might view that link as an endorsement of the article’s content, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Center at Santa Clara. In late 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission said in proposed new guidance that companies could be liable for fraud if they link to material created by other publishers that contains false information — even though the federal Communications Decency Act says sites are immune from liability for material created by third parties. Despite the SEC guidance, Goldman says it’s not at all clear that either courts or government agencies would view the links to news articles on CookieDiet.com as problematic. “We don’t know the answer to the simple question: Are you endorsing content by linking to it?” So who will win on this one? We may never know. The laws and more importantly their enforcement are so new there is going to be some rough sledding ahead for some social media folks. These matters of law will take time to develop like all other Internet law has. With the economy still stumbling along and the litigious nature of our current society many might start looking for social media opportunities to hit the legal judgment lottery. As a result there may be a run on these kinds of things. While it will be interesting to watch this may serve as a cautionary event for many in the new world order of the blogosphere and micro-blogsphere alike. Or it may turn out to be a non-event. Your take?

Originally posted here:
Social Media Lawsuits: Another 2010 Trend?

It looks like Twitter is gearing up for a big year as they announce several (as in around 10) new hires to start the new year. While official numbers of total employees are tough to come by (last I saw put it in the range of 150 but I will not stand by the accuracy of that number) it is obvious that Twitter is looking to have a big year. Let’s call it Twitter’s “Year of Revenue”. That’s usually what we talk about when it comes to the service anyway right? Louis Gray tells about these hires and specifically of one that is very strategic. Anytime Twitter brings on a former Google lawyer then you know they are up to something. Twitter’s pedigree is getting increasingly rich at the expense of Google and other Silicon Valley tech titans. With the holidays behind us, the microblogging powerhouse is starting the new year with more new faces at its San Francisco headquarters. Among them is Bakari Brock, most recently an in house lawyer for YouTube and Google focused on music, video and syndication. Brock, whose LinkedIn profile shows him as corporate counsel at Google, starting in 2007, was heavily quoted in late 2008 when the video service introduced e-commerce capabilities enabling customers to purchase from partners including iTunes and Amazon, and his comments were included in publications such as the New York Times and GigaOM site NewTeeVee. Last year Google was the ‘victim’ of Twitter’s need for legal expertise as well . While probably flattered one would think that losing high profile, likely high dollar and highly visible legal talent is not how Google would like to get the new year started. Some of the background of new hires on the Twitter team include another former Googler, a ex-ning staffer and folks from Cloudera, TiVo, Bebo and VMWare. Add this to an expansion of the Twitter family tree following the acquisition of MixerLabs before Christmas and one would think that “It’s beginning to look a lot like business” (sing that to the tune of “It’s Beginning to Look A Lot Like Christmas” for those wishing the holidays were still here). So let’s go a step further on this one and see what the bold prognosticators among MP readers are predicting for Twitter in 2010. What does the need for more legal firepower say about what might be next?

Link:
Twitter Adds to Its Ranks

Early last month, Google announced it was acquiring AdMob for $750M. The deal is still in the works, of course—in part, at least, because the FTC is taking a first and, as of last week, second look at the deal. As the FTC continues to scrutinize the search giant buying the mobile ad giant, consumer groups are taking their opportunity to have their say —and it’s not in favor of the deal. The biggest concerns of the Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Watchdog include decreasing competition in the mobile ad market and consumer privacy. The groups say that together, Google and AdMob would control most of the mobile ad market. AdMob is already the leader in the market, thought there’s lots of competition in that area. However, with backing from the search engine, it’s possible that AdMob could come to dominate their arena just as Google pwns theirs. The second argument is based on the fact that Google and AdMob both collect considerable information about their users. Together, that information may be a threat to consumers’ privacy, with the two entities sharing everything from searching habits to location data. The groups’ full filing with the FTC is embedded below. It’s easy to understand the appeal for Google, though—with AdMob “approaching a $100M business in the next three years,” as TC puts it, this could be the way for Google to stake their claim in the emerging mobile market. CW and the CDD often make this type of filing on Google’s acquisitions, and it doesn’t always seem to have an effect. But with the FTC already taking a harder look, their word may have that much more sway with the regulators this time around. LtrFTCfinal – What do you think? How much influence will CW & the CDD have this time? Will the FTC ultimately okay the deal?

See more here:
Consumer Groups Lobby FTC to Block GoogleMob

Earlier this month, Google revealed it was filing suit against Pacific WebWorks (and other yet-to-be-named parties) for infringing on its trademark. Pacific WebWorks was among the companies running a “Google Work from Home” scam, advertising a way to make money off Google, to be learned through an inexpensive kit (and hidden, exorbitant recurring fee—which always enhances my learning experience). Pacific WebWorks was also using Google’s logo and representing its kit and other services as endorsed by the search giant. Pacific WebWorks issued a statement yesterday saying that they had reached an “agreement in principle” to settle and would be complying with Google’s request for expedited discovery. So either they think they’re innocent or they’re ready to sweep this all under the rug as fast as possible. So, if they’re agreed and moving toward a settlement, why do we need discovery? Discovery is the phase of the trial where each of the parties share pertinent documents—so perhaps Google is demanding this to find the other companies it believes are running the scams. Google said earlier this month that, “upon information and belief,” the other scammers were materially connected with Pacific WebWorks. Does this mean that the Google work from home scams will stop? Maybe in this iteration—but the whole thing is just a play on an old theme. Read any classifieds section and you’ll see more of the same. Hopefully scammers will think twice about using Google’s name and pretending to have its endorsement, but this scam will probably never go away completely. What do you think? Will the case really be over that quickly? via

Read the rest here:
Google Work at Home Scammer Settling Suit

Here’s a fun Christmas game for you to play. How many different types of lawsuits can you think of that include Google AdWords? Put your party creative hats on and see what you can come up. OK, Sellify, you go first! Sue Amazon over defamatory statements posted in Google AdWords by one of its affiliates? Wow! That is creative! And, it’s actually true! Writes Techdirt : The two main complaints are over trademark violations of buying keywords, and then defamation. Defamation? Yes, because apparently when people do searches on Sellify or some of its related trademarked names, like OneQuality, some of the ads that come up say things like: Beware of the SCAM Artist Camcorders at the Best Price From the Trusted Source amazon.com As Mike Masnick points out, this lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. Not only is Amazon not actually the appropriate party to sue, but trademark infringements in search ads tend to get bogged down in the courts anyway. Still, you have to admire the creativity of Sellify. If we were really playing the above game, it would have a good chance of claiming the top prize.

Originally posted here:
Amazon Sued Over Defamatory Google AdWords Ads